is quaker-b dead?

42 views
Skip to first unread message

simon gray

unread,
Jan 13, 2013, 6:41:07 AM1/13/13
to quaker-b
we of course ask this question on a roughly annual basis, with roughly
the same people replying with roughly the same words.

this time, however, i'm inclined to think the answer really is yes.

i've just had a glance over at the bym group on the face book, and
there are more posts and responses to posts there in just a short
scroll of the scrollbar than there have been here in the last three
months.

similarly, happenstance has taken me to glance at martin kelley's
'quakerquaker' community site, which also contains a significant
amount of interesting and varied discussion. wim can no doubt also
point to the friends faith and fellowship community site, which grew
as an offshoot of my own online meeting for worship site (which in
turn was created to fulfill a need which was perceived to be lacking
here).

the number of people even acknowledging posts here, let alone
responding carefully and thoughtfully, now has become a one hander
quantity, leading me to speculate that no matter how many people might
be notionally subscribed, barely a handful are actually reading it.

time to pack up and move on?

--
www.star-one.org.uk ~ www.winterval.org.uk ~ www.birmingham-alive.com

Rosalind Mitchell

unread,
Jan 13, 2013, 7:30:28 AM1/13/13
to quak...@googlegroups.com
simon gray <si...@star-one.org.uk> writes:

> time to pack up and move on?

Quaker-B has served an important purpose for an impresively long
time, given the volatility of cyberspace, but the world has moved
on and I do feel it is time to lay it down.

Rosie

--
Currently reading: Persepolis, by Marjane Satrapi

Wim Nusselder

unread,
Jan 13, 2013, 10:11:15 AM1/13/13
to quak...@googlegroups.com

Or rather: time to merge with (move over to) one or more of the alternatives mentioned?

Would it really have to be specifically for British Friends (even if independent of) Britain YM or could it also be global in reach?

I can also suggest the ‘Christian Quakers’, ‘Quaker Prayer Group’ and ‘Quaker Theology’ Facebook groups as relatively lively alternatives (‘Christian Quakers’ is public, the other two closed).

 

With f&Friendly greetings,

 

Wim


From: quak...@googlegroups.com [mailto:quak...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Rosalind Mitchell
Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2013 2:28 PM
To: quak...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [Quaker-B] Is the Quaker Business Method dead?

 

Further to my reply to Simon's post, while I stand by my view that Quaker-B in its current format has outlived its usefulness, I now see clearly that there is a very real need for a vigorous forum for British Friends, independent of BYM.  I wonder what the best format could be, and whether Quaker-B has a role in establishing it?  I gather from something said yesterday that even The Friend ("Independent Quaker journalisism since 1843"!) in its current über-bland incarnation won't publish anything the commissars at Fiends House don't want it to.


From: quak...@googlegroups.com [mailto:quak...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Rosalind Mitchell
Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2013 1:30 PM
To: quak...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [Quaker-B] is quaker-b dead?

 

Quaker-B has served an important purpose for an impresively long time, given the volatility of cyberspace, but the world has moved on and I do feel it is time to lay it down.

Chris Roberts, Newton Meeting, Camden NJ USA

unread,
Jan 13, 2013, 2:01:58 PM1/13/13
to quak...@googlegroups.com
I agree this list has become very quiet this past couple of years and I will miss it.  One joy was having a foot in Britain among Friends, another a group where we Universalist Friends feel welcome to mix it with the Christo-centrics and a third where I am not required to sign up and be followed around by Facebook.

Go in peace,  Chris

Caddi Ranyard

unread,
Jan 13, 2013, 5:58:31 PM1/13/13
to Quaker-B
I am sad that I agree.  I won't be going to facebook though, as it is too open to abuse from the USA  government and others.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Quaker-B" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/quaker-b/-/ir1TV9aCTA8J.
To post to this group, send email to quak...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to quaker-b+u...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/quaker-b?hl=en.

Wim Nusselder

unread,
Jan 14, 2013, 3:10:57 AM1/14/13
to quak...@googlegroups.com

Dear Caddi,

 

Are you sure that Facebook is more open to abuse than a Google group??

Everything we write now is accessible to anyone through the link at the bottom of this notification e-mail…

Facebook groups come in sorts: public, findable-by-name-but-content-invisible and neither-findable-nor-visible-unless-you-get-the-url.

Of course Mark Zuckerberg & co can always access everything themselves, but information that has no commercial value is safe with them.

Most of the information that does have commercial value is anonymous, summarised figures anyway, not the content of our discussions.

 

Would forum software like we use at www.quakerfaithandfellowship.org be less open to abuse, in your opinion?

The decision making and blogging parts of that website are only accessible after login (so can’t be found by Google & co).

 

With f&Friendly greetings,

 

Wim


Wim Nusselder

unread,
Jan 14, 2013, 4:10:23 AM1/14/13
to quak...@googlegroups.com, Yeshe Thubten, Tom Smith

Dear Rosie,

 

The forum-website that you suggest as a possible way forward for the Quaker-B Google group is (with slightly different software) exactly how we started at www.quakerfaithandfellowship.org.

You will need a lot of community building to reach the point where QF&F is now, 5 years later.

The only additional value of creating a separate forum, is the "British accent".

Otherwise it is just another e-Quaker webspace of which there are quite a few already.

Too many actually, if you take into account that they compete for and fragment attention.

 

The alternative I can offer is, that I create a subforum within www.quakerfaithandfellowship.org for discussion of matters related to Britain YM.

I can even make two subforums for that purpose: one public, one only accessible for members that are logged in.

Would that suit your purposes (and our purposes as Quaker-B)?

 

You would be very welcome to be co-administrator of QF&F, as we have been searching for someone to share that role with me for quite a while.

(And we have been searching for more moderators as well, of which we have two now, Tom and Yeshe, in the cc.)

QF&F now pays for webhosting to a firm in California (with financial support from The Hague Monthly Meeting).

If the connection to your server is strong enough and your webspace is for free, we could consider moving.

 

With f&Friendly greetings,

 

Wim


From: quak...@googlegroups.com [mailto:quak...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Rosalind Mitchell
Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2013 11:10 PM
To: quak...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [Quaker-B] Is the Quaker Business Method dead?

 

You may like to have a look at

 

http://www.42suggestions.co.uk/forum/index.php

 

as a possible way forward.  I've got oodles of web space – far more than I'm likely to need – ready for use by my new enterprise and I might as well put it to good use.

 

Rosie

simon gray

unread,
Jan 15, 2013, 5:54:46 AM1/15/13
to quaker-b
On 13 January 2013 11:41, simon gray <si...@star-one.org.uk> wrote:

> we of course ask this question on a roughly annual basis, with roughly
> the same people replying with roughly the same words.
>
> this time, however, i'm inclined to think the answer really is yes.

[...]

danny thompson - a long-time contributor - has sent us this, which
he's asked us to convey:

"I've been subscribed for many years, and made occasional
contributions. I still read all that is posted here, though I can no
longer post from the address with which I am subscribed - hence this
reply to you both.

I've been hugely supported and enriched (and frustrated and upset,
among other things) by ministry and postings here over those years,
but I agree with Rosie that it has run its course.

Please could you post this to the list."

it's quite telling, i think, that in a thread discussing whether or
not the list has any life in it, only six people have commented.

Janette

unread,
Jan 15, 2013, 6:43:17 AM1/15/13
to quak...@googlegroups.com
What Chris said....

I recognize the inevitability, but I will miss the virtual sense of community.

Janette

Alec

unread,
Jan 21, 2013, 9:30:35 AM1/21/13
to quak...@googlegroups.com
Without mod access, I don't know how many subscribers the list has.  Yes, there's a core of half a dozen or so regular or even semi-regular individuals who feel moved to minister, although in a unrelated concurrent thread we've seen contributions from two subscribers who have been silent for a considerable length of time.
 
Perhaps there is something to be said for changing the format of Quaker-B; just as this incarnation arose from a plain e-list which, in turn, arose from another form which existed before I turned-up.  On a point of principle - as said above - I see the need for a virtual meeting place not subject to the hierachial control of the non-hierachy.  On a point of common sense, I'd be reluctant to divine a long-term future from anything Facebook which unsurprisingly will garner a lot of attention in the early stages, then become moribund unless it's under the truly inspired direction instead of those trying to piggyback on the efforts of Zuckerberg et al.
 
On a specific point, maybe enquriers and lurkers have felt reluctant to join in because of the ferocious response they received or saw others receiving. 
 
 
~alec
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages